Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2846 ..

Ms Horodny: No; I said that standards change.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. But the point is, of course, that there is a new regime applying in Australia now. Whereas Britain might have been able to ban slavery at a time when other countries in the world had not and there was some social value in it, this is a very different concept.

Ms Horodny: No, it is not.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it is, because today we have committed ourselves towards dealing with these issues on a mutual basis. We say to each other, as Australian communities around this nation, around this continent, "We will work together to produce results which are to the mutual benefit of the whole community".

I take seriously the obligations that the ACT signed up to, not just under the Mutual Recognition Act but also under the Food Standards Code and the national competition principles. All three of those things are confronted or affronted in some way by this move. It is only the slipped date - the incapacity of this to have any effect for at least six years - which prevents any of those things from having an immediate and adverse impact on our relations with other jurisdictions. But, as I have said, it can have an immediate and adverse impact on a major enterprise operating within the jurisdiction. I would urge members to consider very carefully the impact that this could have on that industry and ask themselves whether, for the sake of a purely token kind of gesture - which is what this amounts to - it really is worth taking that risk.

MS HORODNY (4.07): Mr Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this clause. Mr Humphries asked: Why would New South Wales agree to allow the ACT an exemption under the Act? I think there are a couple of reasons why New South Wales might agree to allow an exemption for the ACT. There is provision for exemptions under the Mutual Recognition Act, as we know, and there are a number of areas where at the moment in the ACT we have exemptions under that Act. Surely, the provision for that exemption is there to allow for such situations as we are applying for now. Surely, that provision was put in there to account for differences between States and to allow States to express these differences on various issues.

The other reason why New South Wales might want to agree to give us an exemption is that they themselves may want to apply for such an exemption in the future. Indeed, they may already hold exemptions under this Act, for various reasons, on various issues. I am not sure whether or not they do; but there is certainly provision for them to do so, and if they do not hold such exemptions at the moment they have an ability to ask for such exemptions. It would perhaps be difficult for them to do so if they were not willing to agree to such exemptions for other States. So, I imagine that there is a quid pro quo in operation in these sorts of issues. I believe that the provision for exemptions is there for a very good reason. I do not see why a State would not allow us to provide for rules under the Animal Welfare Act as we see fit. That is, after all, a basic democratic right.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .